On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the >> amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes >> doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for >> giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor". >> By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis >> much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not >> prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we >> know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong >> hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was >> Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in >> the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued >> to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends). >> >> So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp >> theory (which is arguably a very old idea). >> >> Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even >> take offense that we can imagine not following comp. >> >> >> Because they might not. This is a problem, because the other thing you >> do is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. >> So you are dominating people. >> >> >> Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a >> flaw if you think there is one). >> >> I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, >> I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is >> admittedly counter-intuitive. >> >> >> >> >> Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in >> extre dimensional reality? >> >> >> First, I don't express myself in that way. >> >> For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its >> logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that >> matter goes on in extradimensional reality. >> >> With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine >> if its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or >> has a very large cardinal. >> >> Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary >> arithmetic (like Robinson arithmetic). >> >> I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and >> the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology. >> >> >> >> Do theybelieve in MWI >> >> >> This is ambiguous. >> >> In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a >> (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become >> skeptical) on both a creator and a creation. >> >> So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory. >> >> What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the >> set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in >> the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That >> is not mine, that is standard material. >> >> You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the > beginning. > > > Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it. >
You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. Russell Standish read it...he understood. So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. > > > >> >> >> >> the infinite multiverse of dreams? >> >> >> If you agree that the natural numbers obeys to the axioms (with s(x) >> intended for the successor of x, that is x+1): >> >> 0 ≠ s(x) >> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y >> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) >> x+0 = x >> x+s(y) = s(x+y) >> x*0=0 >> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x >> >> Then you get the "multiverse of dreams" by comp. >> >> Keep in mind the most fundamental theorem of computer science (with >> Church Thesis): Universal machines exist. And that theorem is provable in >> Robinson arithmetic (in a weak sense), and in Peano Arithmetic (with a >> stringer sense). >> >> >> >> What are the other consequences of the theory. Run me through them. >> >> >> If it helps you to doubt a little bit of physicalism and Aristotelianism, >> I am happy enough. >> >> The consequence is more a state of mind, an awe in front of something >> bigger that we thought (the internal view of arithmetic on itself). An awe >> in front of our ignorance, but also the discovery that such ignorance is >> structured, productive, inexhaustible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most >> rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer reviewed >> enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some people makes >> ideas having to wait they died before people talk and think, and special >> interests and all that, so I admit the results are still rather ignored, >> though some people seems to be inspired by them also, hard to say). >> >> >> No that's not right. There are huge chains of unrefuted logic out >> there. People don't sign up to those chains, they sign up to what they >> accept. Scientists might reject comp if they hear what you've got to say. A >> large number would not find that you sought to dominate their options in >> comp very scientific. >> >> The problem here Bruno, is you act like they have responsibility to >> automatelly go into that process with you, or they are in a position in >> which they assume comp, and now they have to find a fault in your >> reasoning, or they automatically assume UDA. >> >> >> >> Why not? >> >> Once a mathematician proves that there are irrational numbers, no one >> will come back with a theory claiming that does not exist, or claiming that >> 2x^2 = y^2 has non trivial integer solution. >> >> Computer science is a bran.... mathematics. Everyone can verify what I >> say. That is science: people must follow, or explain where there is a flaw. >> The only opposition of some scientists was that my work was too much easy, >> like their two years old niece could find herself. I agree, but then she >> should publish. >> >> Of course the subject makes easy to just ignore all this, because during >> all the years of research, I was confronted with scientists just dislilink >> the fundamental question, but also the quantum computer science, ... That >> is common with *some* (not all of course) among the so called "pure >> mathematicians" which just hates applications (and logic was considered as >> a branch of pure mathematics by some logicians who j >> > > > You didn't address my points..beause ng out of this in my experience when > you stop addressing point you don't start again. > > No problem. > > You seem to be defining something new there Bruno. Looks a lot simpler > than Popper's philosophy. Whereas he'd have to do C&R for however long, > before he'd feel able to to say someone was a popperian. He would probably > totally irrelevantly do that wait thing, until the person actually said > they accepted his argument. > > You've also defined science apparently in terms of mathematical proofing. > Apparently youj no longer need that 'test' you'vr been talking about. > > > I keep insisting on the contrary. We make theory and proof theorem which > shows some testable consequence of the theory and we test those > consequences. > > > > > > People will have to study it. It could be Popperians are now able to > bypass conjecture and refutation process, for the vast majority of > humanity. Pretty sure Deutsch is going to be making everyone in the world > Popperian by lunchtime (on grounds Rationalism is unrefutated and all the > major explanations in the set he's got are unrefuted for a while. > > So, I guess we're all popperians now, and Popperianism just got a lot > simkpler. That's Occam for sure. > > > We can be partially Popperian. Popper criteria *has been refuted*. > > CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by > Popperian > machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-York, > Buffalo. > > > > > Science gets a good deal to. We can get rid of peer review, scientific > consensus...those idiots that say nothing is ever proven in science can > shut up > > > ? > Peer review is indispensable. But science "proves" nothing about reality, > it makes things relatively plausible or implausible. > > > > > Baiscally, it doesn'tmatter the way you used here.....and I'm definitely > not being not going to be engaging you envisionings of scientific method on > this occasion. > > > Our problem is that you do philosophy of science to criticize a scientific > result. That is close to Bergson mistake. > You don't address the specific point in physical/cognitive science here at > all. You seem to escape in the meta for never addressing any points made. > > Do you agree with step 3, the first person indeterminacy? > > Bruno > > > > > > > So have fun with it. Let me know what I believe sometime. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
